🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Nov, 21:01, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
> Wings of Truth wrote:
> > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:33:08 GMT, Tom Roberts
> > <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> You are unaware of the actual history, in which Maxwell actually used an
> >> aether to derive his equations.
>
> > It matters not that Maxwell used an aether
> > theoretically; my point stands that no such
> > thing ever existed, nor was ever needed by light
> > as it traveled/travels through space; thus, as
> > I said, Maxwell's equations could not have
> > needed an aether (since it never existed).
>
> I submit that neither you nor anybody else knows whether or not some
> sort of aether exists. The models we currently use do not have it, but
> they are just MODELS, not the real world itself.
>
> > Returning to my prior point, Maxwell's equations
> > never pertained to light's coordinate speed,
>
> They have ALWAYS done so. Just look at the wave solutions to them, and
> see that dx/dt=c (for a specified phase of the wave). That is MANIFESTLY
> a coordinate speed.
>
> > they have always
> > pertained only to light's speed through space.
>
> "speed through space" has no meaning.
>
> >>> And as far as the Galilean transformation goes,
> >>> it STILL predicts a NON-null result in the one-way
> >>> light speed case, as long as absolutely synchronous
> >>> clocks are used.
> >> Sure. But there is no experimental support for such notions.
>
> > You've got it backward; there is no way to prove
> > that we cannot absolutely synchronize clocks.
>
> Science is not about "proof", and "proving" such a negative is nigh
> impossible. But before you can even discuss "absolutely synchronized
> clocks" you need to define what that means, and you have not. Indeed, to
> date nobody has. Moreover, for the obvious meaning of that phrase (for a
> set of "absolutely synchronized clocks", all clocks remain in synch
> regardless of their motions), this is completely incompatible with
> numerous observations of the world we inhabit.
>
> > I submit that you cannot show even on paper two
> > or more inertial frames getting the Michelson-Morley
> > null result without also showing at least one frame
> > suffering a physically-contracted x axis and a
> > physically-slowed clock.
>
> It is dead easy to do so: use SR. In SR, neither "length contraction"
> nor "time dilation" are physical -- they are purely geometrical. A
> moving ruler does not physically get any shorter, it is merely MEASURED
> shorter by an observer relative to whom it is moving along its length.
> Ditto for clock tick-rates.
>
>         Simple example: take two meter sticks, A and B, and place
>         them in a V on the ground. Project the end of each
>         perpendicularly onto the other. The length of A projected
>         onto B is less than 1 meter; the length of B projected
>         onto A is likewise less than 1 meter. Yet NEITHER stick
>         is physically shorter. This is easily recognizable as a
>         geometric projection that does not affect the meter sticks
>         at all. In SR, "length contraction" and "time dilation"
>         are PRECISELY the same -- geometric projections that do
>         not affect objects at all.


Roberts Roberts you are paid for teaching that length contraction and
time dilation are "purely geometrical", not "physical", and so teach
your French brothers - Thibault Damour and Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji for
instance. However most brothers in Einstein criminal cult teach the
opposite Roberts Roberts - they are paid for explaining how a long
train can be trapped inside a short tunnel, how a 80m long pole can be
trapped inside a 40m long barn, and, what is most important Roberts
Roberts, those brothers of yours tell the "story of what causes the
particles to get closer together, and so what causes the rod to
shrink":

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/79932e7b2f752604?

Who gives the money for all those good salaries Roberts Roberts?
Taxpayers in Einstein zombie world?

Pentcho Valev